Calvin Arrant v. Wayne Acree Pls, Inc. & Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation, 187 So. 3d 417

Calvin Arrant, injured in a 2012 work-related vehicle accident, sought a lumbar MRI recommended by his treating orthopedist; LWCC denied authorization and the medical director upheld the denial via facsimile in Sept. and Oct. 2012.
Arrant filed a Disputed Claim for Compensation (Form 1008) with the Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWC) on May 1, 2013 seeking review and reimbursement after his attorney paid for the MRI.
The OWC sustained defendants’ peremptory exception of prescription, holding Arrant failed to file the Form 1008 within the 15-day filing period set by LAC 40:I.2715(B)(3)(f); the Second Circuit affirmed.
The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to whether the OWC director could shorten a legislatively prescribed prescriptive period by administrative rule.
The Supreme Court held the administrative 15-day rule was ultra vires because the Legislature had directly prescribed the prescriptive period for medical benefits in La. R.S. 23:1209(C); it reversed the prescription ruling and remanded for OWC to decide the merits of Arrant’s claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the OWC director could create a 15-day prescriptive period by administrative rule for filing a Form 1008 after the medical director’s decision	Arrant: the admin rule cannot shorten or override the Legislature’s one-year prescriptive period for medical benefits in La. R.S. 23:1209; the director lacked power to designate prescription	Defendants: the director properly exercised delegated rulemaking authority (La. R.S. 23:1291 and 23:1203.1) to create a 15-day appeal window to effectuate efficient resolution	Held: Administrative rule is ultra vires as to prescription; Legislature directly spoke on the prescriptive period in La. R.S. 23:1209, so the 15-day administrative rule cannot bar the claim
Consequence of missing the 15-day administrative appeal period — whether claim is extinguished and cannot be refiled	Arrant: allowing the admin rule to extinguish claims would unfairly deprive access to statutorily protected medical benefits and create res judicata barriers	Defendants: the administrative 15-day limit serves the statute’s efficiency goals; failure to comply supports dismissal as untimely	Held: Court rejected using the admin rule to extinguish Arrant’s statutory claim; judgment sustaining prescription was vacated and matter remanded for merits review (administrative deadline cannot override statutory prescription)

Bailey v. Khoury, 891 So.2d 1268 (La. 2005) (principle that a judgment sustaining prescription is final and appealable)
Bouterie v. Crane, 616 So.2d 657 (La. 1993) (discussion of prescription as a mode of barring actions)
State v. Alfonso, 753 So.2d 156 (La. 1999) (administrative delegation valid when statute provides clear policy and standards)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (agency deference framework when statute ambiguous)
Midtown Medical, LLC v. Dept. of Health & Hosp., 135 So.3d 594 (La. 2014) (agency statutory interpretation precedent)
Church Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dardar, 145 So.3d 271 (La. 2014) (background on purpose of La. R.S. 23:1203.1 and medical treatment schedule)
Sims v. American Ins. Co., 101 So.3d 1 (La. 2012) (effect of dismissal with prejudice as final judgment)